[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Andre Broersen]

Ham to Andre and Bo (but Bodvar can speak for himself if he wishes to do so)

I hope you have observed a fundamental difference between the MoQ, as you
interpret it, and my valuistic philosophy.

Andre:
You betcha.

Ham:
Both of you dismiss or reject Protagoras's maxim "Man is the measure of all
things," and I believe Pirsig does, too.

Andre:
Pirsig suggests that 'Man' as a collection of PoV's is 'a participant in the
creation of things' (ZMM p 368).

Ham:
If this dialogue achieves nothing else, it will be my aim to
confront you with the fact (yes, it is a fact) that man himself is the sole
arbiter and judge of what is good, moral, or esthetically pleasing, and
their negative counterparts.

Andre:
You are assigning to 'man himself' an independent reality. This is typical
S/O thinking. You thereby suggest that 'Man' has absolutely no relationship
with/connection with the inorganic and organic PoV's from which it is
derived. This is nonsense.

Ham:
In other words, in the absence of human sensibility, Value simply does not
exist.  The universe does not evolve to Quality, atoms do not respond to
Value, and Morality is distinctly a human invention.

Andre:
Read Chapter 8 of Lila, Ham. It starts with: 'The idea that the world is
composed of nothing but moral value sounds impossible at first'.

Must give you two observations though: imho the world does appear to evolve
(back) toward Quality (i.e Harmony, Good).

The 'human invention bit: well, Pirsig posited it, backed up
by rediscovering its social roots with the Sophists, cross-referencing it
with the Tao, the Buddha etc as the oldest idea in the world, and applying
it within our scientific, S/O dominated  intellect and thereby arguing a way
of understanding the world which is far more inclusive and makes a lot more
sense (by denying the primacy of subjects and objects and positing Quality
as the primary 'source'.

But, to stretch my point a bit farther, the quantum particle has said that
it prefers what it does based on a response to quality because that particle
is part of me ...and you! ( are you happy to be here?? Arggh lets not get
into that one...I hope you follow my reasoning).

Ham:
In all of these statements the assumption is made that "creating", "liking",
"preferring", "realizing" "struggling", "recognizing", and "bettering" are
functional attributes of the material universe or its patterned
constituents.  No mention is made of man and his subjective sensibility, as
if to deny that we ourselves are accountable for the realization and
appreciation of value.  Instead of suggesting a cosmic role for human
beings, this notion in effect regresses philosophy to the animism of the
ancient alchemists.

Andre:

I do not know what you mean by 'functional attributes of the material
universe' not 'cosmic role for human beings'. Again you separate
out objective and subjective while the MoQ clearly identifies material/
substance (objective) with inorganic PoV's and human beings (subjective)
with organic PoV's ,the only difference being their different evolutionary
levels. And this is what leads Pirsig to , then, suggest that 'Mind is
contained in static inorganic patterns. Matter is containd in static
intellectual patterns...and capable of each containing to other without
contradiction'. (Lila, p 159)

Ham:
Looking for more sensible insight,

Andre:
Only if you are willing to see and hear Ham.

For what it is worth